The current reforms of the United Kingdom's primary
healthcare sector intend to improve accessibility to health
care.1 One of the proposals is to introduce "walk-in"
primary care centres.2 The intention is to pilot "a
series of nurse led centres which can be used on a `drop in' basis,
providing minor treatment, health information and self help advice."
The Canadian medical system has many similarities to the British
system. Canada's health system is funded through general taxation (and
Medicare premiums),3 and its general practitioners (family
physicians) have a gatekeeper role to secondary care in most provinces.
Canada has had walk-in centres for over 20 years. However, these
centres are a doctor led service. The lessons learnt in Canada about
walk-in centres may be relevant to the NHS. In this article I review
the available literature about Canadian walk-in centres.
|
Summary points
United Kingdom and Canadian health care have many similarities,
and Canada has had walk-in primary care centres for over two decades
United Kingdom walk-in centres will be nurse led (with limited
prescribing), unlike the Canadian centres, which are doctor led
Evidence exists of lack of continuity between walk-in centres and
general practices in Canada
Patients are mainly adults under 35 and children with minor medical
conditions (respiratory infections)
Elderly people and those with chronic medical conditions attend
relatively less
Walk-in centre costs represent about 3% of total first contact health
expenditure
|
 |
Methods |
I conducted a search using standard techniques on Medline
and PubMed, with manual search and search by author. The MeSH phrases used were "walk-in," "primary care," "family medicine," and
"ambulatory care."
I have included papers from Canada and the United Kingdom. Papers from
the United States and other countries and those covering open access to
secondary care or special needs groups (such as drugs programmes) were
excluded. The initial PubMed search identified 147 items, and Medline
identified 66. Further examination showed a total of 28 (24 included)
relevant articles including service evaluations, letters, and a
literature review from 1989. The table shows the papers presenting
original data. There were no published evaluations of nurse led walk-in
clinics in Canada.
 |
Background |
Walk-in centres are defined as "a facility that is
physically separate from a hospital, has extended hours of service, and which accepts patients without an appointment or a
referral."13 They are a feature of many healthcare
systems, particularly the United States, Australia, and Canada. Walk-in
centres originated in the United States as free standing emergency
centres in 1973, bridging the gap between "family physicians and
overburdened emergency departments, by providing a non appointment
service."13 They evolved into "urgent care centres"
in the 1980s, with a greater primary care role and a diminishing role
in emergency care. These centres crossed into Canada in
1979.7
There are two main types of service in Canada. A walk-in centre has
extended opening hours and little connection to local doctors. The
second model is the "after hours" services (similar to general
practice cooperatives in Britain) with links to family practices.8 Large numbers of walk-in clinics and after
hours services operate in Canada, but the exact number is not available as they are not recognised as separate health providers from other family physician services.5
Walk-in primary care clinics in Canada can provide an extended range of
investigations and treatments. Some also include pharmacies, social
services, physiotherapy, secondary care
services,
14 15
and commercial services such as tanning
salons.5
 |
Continuity of care |
Continuity of health care is one of the main concerns with
walk-in centres. Borkenhagen raises "concern about fragmentation of
care and inadequate follow up [of] chronic
conditions."14 Only 47% of Toronto clinics routinely
inform the patient's general practitioner of the attendance, although
79% do so on request.5 Although 79% of patients
attending these centres in one study had a regular doctor, most (75%)
had not tried to contact him or her.6 Only 20% were
concerned that they saw a different doctor at each visit.6
Szafran and Bell also found that although 73-79% of patients could
contact their own doctor during evenings and weekends, only 26% did so
before attending.12
After hours centres attract a different patient base, with 96.5% of
patients having a general practitioner.8 In a survey of a
paediatric clinics (regarded as primary care in some provinces), only
39% of carers had tried to contact their doctor.4 This is
despite 85% having a paediatrician and 67% a general practitioner.
 |
Workload |
A retrospective survey of family practice patients found
that use of walk-in centres was high, with over a quarter (27.3%) of
patients having visited in the past six months; 37% of these had
visited more than once.7 Eight years later use remained at
27.5% (95% confidence interval 0.23 to 0.31).12 Feldman
and Cullum found that 95% of patients had attended a paediatric
walk-in clinic more than once within the past 12 months and 43% within the past month.4 In a hospital based family practice
population, 38% of patients attended a walk-in clinic for "their
last emergency."10 Weinkauf and Kralj's study of
billing shows that walk-in consultations constitute 2.5% of all first
patient contacts and that after hours services constitute
1.4%.11
The only published study examining the interaction of walk-in centres
and emergency departments describes events leading to the visit but not
the impact on workload; 62% of patients attending the emergency
department had general practitioners, and 59% had used walk-in
clinics.9
 |
Unmet medical need |
The most common reasons for attending walk-in centres were
their convenient location, minor medical problems, and convenient hours.7 A long wait for an appointment with the patient's
own doctor was only the fourth most common reason.7 Rizos
et al found a third of users attended because of the convenient
location and 16% because "they couldn't see their doctor soon
enough."6 Among people using the paediatric walk-in
clinic, 39% used it because of the range of services and
"convenience of the hours."4
Szafran and Bell found that 43% of patients used walk-in clinics
during weekday hours of 9 am to 5 pm, 18% after 5 pm, and 29% at
weekends.12 Weinkauf and Kralj observed that 20% of
patients at walk-in centres attend at the weekend, compared with only
4% at "office based" practices.11
The illnesses of patients attending walk-in centres reflect those seen
in primary care. The most common diagnosis is upper respiratory tract
infection (ranging from 33% to 51% of cases).
8 6 11
Chronic conditions are seen more frequently in general practices than
in walk-in centres: diabetes (2.0% v 0.4% of case load), hypertension (6.4% v 1.5%), and osteoarthritis (1.8%
v 0.3%).11 Family planning consultations are
more common in walk-in centres than office based practice (2.0%
v 1.3%).11
 |
User demographics |
Centre users in one study were predominantly female (68%),
aged 20-29 (30%), and not working.7 This may, however,
reflect the population attending family practices. A recent study found that 74% of those attending walk-in clinics were women compared with
71% attending office based practices.12 In a cross
sectional survey of after hour clinics, women aged 21-50 accounted for
30% of users.8
Children and younger adults (<35) were more likely to attend walk-in
centres than those aged over 35.12 This pattern is similar
in after hours clinics.8 It has been stated that "Family physicians have tended to abandon the needs of their patients, especially working families."16 Conversely, walk-in
services may not be meeting the needs of the older population.
 |
Effect on demand for care |
An important concern about walk-in centres is that they
increase (potentially unnecessary) medical demand. There are no
published studies exploring whether walk-in clinics have increased
primary care activity.
Perhaps an indicator of demand, rather than need, is the patient's
perception of urgency. The paediatric survey showed that 39% of
patients had had symptoms for less than 24 hours.4 Rizos et al explored acceptable waiting period for medical attention among
walk-in patients; 15% responded "minutes," but a cumulative total
of 63% wanted to be seen with in 12 hours.6 However, only
1% were referred on to emergency departments, suggesting this urgency
may not be justified. Rachlis found that only 4% of patients attending
after hours services were referred to secondary care.8
Concern exists in Canada about the concept of "double doctoring"
(unnecessary duplication of consultations). Bell and Szafran observed
that 46% of patients attending walk-in clinics later attended their
doctor for the same condition, 67% with seven days.7 Weinkauf and Kralj showed a small increase in follow up rates at 72 hours for people attending walk-in clinics (27%) compared with general
practice consultations (22.7%).11
 |
Patient satisfaction |
In Bell's study of walk-in clinics, satisfaction was high,
with 73.8% of users saying they were satisfied and would visit again.7 Rizos et al found that 83% of users were
satisfied.6 Among patients attending emergency
departments, knowledge of walk-in clinics was high (70-73%), but only
34% had a positive opinion of the clinics.9 Those who
were dissatisfied felt that the doctors were of "poor quality."
 |
Doctors' attitudes |
There are no surveys of doctors' attitudes, but a measure
of their views can be obtained from the medical journals. General practitioners are concerned about quality of care and "cherry picking" by walk-in centres, leaving the traditional general practice service with the complex patients. Burak's accusation of walk-in clinics servicing a "high volume, low intensity"
workload17 has some support from Weinkauf and Kralj's
study.11 There is also concern about walk-in centres
increasing demand by removing barriers to care. A doctor at a meeting
of the College of Family Physicians of Canada warned that "any way we
train patients to use services inappropriately . . . may inadvertently be teaching people to demand care at ever lower
levels of distress."16 Makin condemns this style of care
as "McDonald's medicine."18 However, a walk-in centre
director responds, "Convenience, cleanliness and consistency are all
selling points . . . a McDonald's kind of
concept."19
Some argue that criticism of walk-in centres is unsubstantiated and
anecdotal.20 Rowlands and others suggest that as
"Medicine is a . . . marketable product," doctors
need to "do it or lose it," by providing after hours
clinics.
19 21 22
 |
Costs |
An economic study using routine billing data (Ontario
Health Insurance Plan) shows that walk-in centres accounted for 3% of total (including emergency department) first patient contact
costs.11 The authors note some limitations of the methods.
An unpublished Manitoba health report states that "If [walk-in
clinics] increase costs, it is probably marginally."14
Cost is central to many arguments. Toews for example, states that
walk-in clinics "drive up the cost . . . due to
unnecessary visits and
duplication."23
 |
Future of walk-in centres |
The future of walk-in clinics seems assured, despite a
possible change to Canadian primary health care with the introduction of "rostering" (a modified capitation payment system with a 24 hour
commitment). The Canadian College of Family Physicians and provincial
colleges of physicians and surgeons (which have a role similar to the
General Medical Council) acknowledge that these centres are "here to
stay."14
One centre owner says that walk-in clinics "will have to incorporate
a strong family medicine component. It will be an exception . . . that survives strictly as an episodic care
centre."21 However, in Toronto, several walk-in centres
have gone out of business "through overly aggressive
expansion."19 Nevertheless, it seems certain that the
growing strength of these clinics "will inevitably challenge all
doctors to meet the demand for a more convenient
service."19
 |
Conclusions |
The studies included in this article have been criticised
for their small local samples and self reporting.11
Population based surveys, more health economic studies, and comparative
studies are needed. Nevertheless, the results give important
information about Canadian walk-in centres. It is unclear, however, how
applicable this will be to the nurse led services in the United Kingdom.
The finding of most concern is the lack of continuity of clinics with
established primary care, which may have important long term cost and
quality implications. The total costs (at only 3% of total primary
care) are surprisingly low. The studies do not tell us anything about
the effect of walk-in clinics on demand for health care, although one
study found that the rate of use remains stable at eight years.